OMG Politics, I'm over it already.
- Thread starter sunvalleylaw
- Start date
- Status
mongooz
.
he's "the gipper". there are a number of reasons. one would be the iran hostage problem. jimmy carter "negotiated" with iran (through intermediaries) for over a year and got NOWHERE. when reagan won the election he was asked in a press conference (i watched it) what he would do if iran didn't release the hostages....he said "i will bomb them back to the stoneage". apparently iran believed him because they released the hostages on the day he was sworn in. that is one thing that the GOP has made him a god over.
VoidTerraFirma
Live to wine
mongooz
.
maybe or maybe not. but i watched the press conference where he said that, and it was around the end of november. perhaps iran was convinced that he would do it and agreed to some sort of orchestrated release. in any event.....the gop has cannonized him ever since.
jp_nyc
Kick Henry Jackassowski
Because they had to invent a mythology to get him elected in the first place. He wasn’t especially conservative, or bright, or good with numbers. He was just an angry old man who hated commies and taxes and delivered a well-written speech like it was a superpower. And keeping the Reagan myth alive provides a foundation for the GOP’s culture of willful ignorance.
Knox in Box
Rustbelt refugee.
Read up on the founding of The Ronald Reagan Legacy Foundation.
They purposely created a foundation to promote his name as a conservative icon, name warships, airports etc....
Flamencology
You don't deserve koa.
This is true in many ways, but I think it's a little over-simplistic. The Republican shift from liberal to conservative and the Democratic shift from conservative to liberal certainly ended with the era of Johnson and Goldwater, but that was just the final nail in something that had been coming for decades. See: FDR.
335clone
Living the dream
Wow, Switzerland sure has changed.
Lolz.
Dude from high school upset about ACA and government mandates....
I'm very surprised that when one of my more left leaning friends makes a post I don't agree with and I comment but it gets deleted because I disagree. that kinda disturbs me. All I did was ask a question that has no answer. I wanted to see if I missed something. We all feel passionate about the issues but true ignorance is not considering the other side. It is a sad commentary to the state of things. Don't put political leaning stuff out there if all you're doing is propagandizing. So let me just ask the question now... Where in the constitution does it state the government has the power to make you buy insurance from a private company? I'd love to hear specifically. If you comment, just stick to this one question. Let's see what we get. Thanks... And no. Not tagging anyone either....
Tiltsta's response....
The Supreme Court has ruled that the mandate to purchase insurance is, in essence, a tax on those who fail to do so, which falls under the constitutionally designated power of Congress to create taxes. Like damn near everything, it isn't expressed in precise terms in the Constitution, so it is up to the Court to decide if it is within the legal boundaries of the Constitution. Whether or not one agrees with it, the Court has decided it is legal to levy this type of tax on mandates related to insurance. There are many pages of interpretations of this decision, and if it is or is not a trampling of the essence of the Constitution all over the web, most of which have clear political bias to them. The original decisions provide an interesting overview of the Court on taxation, fines, and the lack of applicability of mandates to the commerce clauses of the Constitution. Worth a read if you are interested in this kind of thing. I think the 'tax' decision was largely based on the fact that the government requests that you buy insurance and taxes those that do not. Once you have paid the tax, there is nothing else the government can do to you. It is an interesting take on things.
I'm very surprised that when one of my more left leaning friends makes a post I don't agree with and I comment but it gets deleted because I disagree. that kinda disturbs me. All I did was ask a question that has no answer. I wanted to see if I missed something. We all feel passionate about the issues but true ignorance is not considering the other side. It is a sad commentary to the state of things. Don't put political leaning stuff out there if all you're doing is propagandizing. So let me just ask the question now... Where in the constitution does it state the government has the power to make you buy insurance from a private company? I'd love to hear specifically. If you comment, just stick to this one question. Let's see what we get. Thanks... And no. Not tagging anyone either....
Tiltsta's response....
The Supreme Court has ruled that the mandate to purchase insurance is, in essence, a tax on those who fail to do so, which falls under the constitutionally designated power of Congress to create taxes. Like damn near everything, it isn't expressed in precise terms in the Constitution, so it is up to the Court to decide if it is within the legal boundaries of the Constitution. Whether or not one agrees with it, the Court has decided it is legal to levy this type of tax on mandates related to insurance. There are many pages of interpretations of this decision, and if it is or is not a trampling of the essence of the Constitution all over the web, most of which have clear political bias to them. The original decisions provide an interesting overview of the Court on taxation, fines, and the lack of applicability of mandates to the commerce clauses of the Constitution. Worth a read if you are interested in this kind of thing. I think the 'tax' decision was largely based on the fact that the government requests that you buy insurance and taxes those that do not. Once you have paid the tax, there is nothing else the government can do to you. It is an interesting take on things.
Last edited:
High school dude is currently having it out with another guy from high school that is a very successful lawyer.
I love how people who profess a love of the Constitution can willfully ignore the decisions of the constitutionality of a law by the Supreme Court....which is strictly acting in a manner dictated in the Constitution. Just because you don't like a decision doesn't mean you can ignore it and hide behind your fluid interpretation of your laminated pocket Constitution.
I love how people who profess a love of the Constitution can willfully ignore the decisions of the constitutionality of a law by the Supreme Court....which is strictly acting in a manner dictated in the Constitution. Just because you don't like a decision doesn't mean you can ignore it and hide behind your fluid interpretation of your laminated pocket Constitution.
Last edited:
It's funny how people are going to jail for laughing at a government official and then this http://www.foxbusiness.com/features...h-will-apply-obscenity-law-if-needed.amp.html
micwalt
Too Controversial To Have An Athleisure Line
I didn't say Republicans; I said conservatives.
mongooz
.
frunobulax
Gak Pernah Cukup!
Probably doesn't have it now.
jp_nyc
Kick Henry Jackassowski
What better way is there to show respect for the flag than flying it in the back of a junky old truck full of dirty work tools?
- Status